State v. Chase

310 Neb. 160

964 N.W.2d 254

STATE of Nebraska, appellee,

v.Amandah K. CHASE, appellant.

No. S-20-789.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed September 17, 2021

Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Rebekah S. Keller, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust, Lincoln, for appellee.

Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Freudenberg, J.

INTRODUCTION

The defendant appeals from the district court sitting as an appellate court, which affirmed the county court's denial of her motion for absolute discharge based on her statutory right to a speedy trial. She asserts the county court's failure to articulate its reasoning at the time of its sua sponte continuances of the trial date rendered untimely the evidence of good cause ultimately adduced by the prosecution at the hearing on her motion for discharge. The defendant argues that because of the untimeliness of the reasoning and evidence supporting good cause for the judicial delays, we must reverse the district court's determination that the county court did not clearly err in finding the delays attributable to its sua sponte orders were for good cause and therefore excludable. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND

The underlying charges against Amandah K. Chase are two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence assault in the third degree in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-323(4) (Reissue 2016). The charges were filed in county court on October 2, 2019. Chase was arrested on January 21, 2020. A probable cause hearing was held that same date. The court set bond and appointed Chase defense counsel.

MARCH 13, 2020

A pretrial hearing was held on March 13, 2020, before Judge Sheryl Lohaus, in which defense counsel asked to set a hearing for "cleanup" and voir dire. The court set a hearing for March 26.

MARCH 26, 2020

At the hearing on March 26, 2020, again before Judge Lohaus, defense counsel informed the court that Chase intended to pursue a jury trial. The court scheduled a jury trial status check for May 28. The journal entry provides, "Case continued to 5/28/2020 at 10:30 AM on motion of Defense."

MAY 28, 2020

The status check hearing on May 28, 2020, was held before Judge Jeffrey Marcuzzo. Defense counsel informed the court that Chase "is ready to set this for a jury trial."

Defense counsel continued, "I'm not sure when Judge Lohaus is setting hers or if she's requiring another cleanup." Judge Marcuzzo stated that he was "not quite sure myself," and he continued matters for a couple of weeks, scheduling another pretrial status check in front of Judge Lohaus so she could tell Chase "how she intends on handling these matters." Defense counsel responded, "Okay."

The journal entry stated, "Case continued to 6/11/2020 at 10:30 AM on motion of the Court." It further stated, "Case continued. Defendant asking to be set for trial at further hearing. No objection by State's Attorney."

JUNE 11, 2020

At the jury trial status check before Judge Lohaus on June 11, 2020, Chase reiterated her request for a jury trial and stated, "I'm not sure when the Court is going to be able to schedule those, but we'd like to have it set if possible."

The court replied, "Probably September." Defense counsel responded, "Okay." Discussion was had in which defense counsel expressed willingness to be scheduled as a "backup" in order to be tried as soon as possible. Judge Lohaus explained that in such a case, the trial could end up being "bumped," because "we have other cases that have priority, which is district court." Defense counsel stated, "We'll take what we can get, Your Honor."

The journal entry provided, "Case continued to 8/10/2020 ... for Jury Trial."

JUNE 25, 2020

A journal entry reflects that another hearing was held on June 25, 2020, but there is no bill of exceptions for that hearing. The journal entry states, "Case continued to 8/03/2020 ... on motion of the Court ... for Jury Trial - Voir Dire."

MOTION FOR DISCHARGE AND HEARING

The transcript contains a motion for absolute discharge with a certificate of service dated July 27, 2020. The motion claimed violations of Chase's statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The parties agreed that, absent tolling, the 6-month statutory period would have run on July 21, 2020.

At the hearing on the motion, the county court set forth that the State carried the burden to show the periods of delay were excludable. The State offered into evidence, and asked the county court to take judicial notice of, 11 exhibits containing administrative orders and other documents of the Nebraska Supreme Court and Douglas County relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chase did not object to the exhibits, and they were received.

The exhibits included an affidavit of the clerk of the district court, who averred on March 17, 2020, that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he would be unable to notify and impanel the required prospective jurors.

The exhibits also included an administrative order on April 27, 2020, by Judge Shelly Stratman, the presiding district court judge, continuing for good cause all jury trials scheduled for the jury panels beginning June 8 through 22. Judge Stratman explained that the court could not conduct jury trials within the social distancing guidelines for protection of the public during the pandemic. Even if the court could assemble a willing venire, Judge Stratman explained, there was no way to ensure a jury's deliberations would be unaffected by conflicting health and safety concerns.

The State argued the delays were all on the court's own motion for good cause due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it also pointed out that defense counsel did not object to the May 28 continuance, but instead responded "[o]kay" after the court announced it would be continuing matters.

Defense counsel argued that when a court continues trial on its own motion, it must, at the time of the continuance, make specific findings of good cause based on evidence adduced by the State. She argued that it was too late for the State to prove and the court to find good cause based only on evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for discharge.

In a journal entry on July 30, 2020, the county court found that the continuances on March 26, May 28, and June 11 were on the court's own motion and that 96 days associated with these continuances were excludable. The court elaborated that the exhibits offered by the State at the hearing on the motion for discharge proved by a preponderance of the evidence the trial was delayed for good cause pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(f) (Reissue 2016), because of a "nationwide pandemic of Novel Coronavirus and COVID-19 disease." The court specifically noted the affidavit of the clerk of the district court and Judge Stratman's administrative order in support of its finding.

APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT

Chase appealed the July 30, 2020, order denying her statutory right to a speedy trial to the district court. The court affirmed the county court's order denying the motion for discharge on the ground that the judicial delays were for good cause.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Chase assigns that the district court erred in affirming the order of the county court denying her motion for absolute discharge under § 29-1207, because the State failed to meet its burden to show that good cause existed sufficient to toll her speedy trial rights.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, a trial court's determination as to whether charges should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds is a factual question that will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.¹ Under a clearly erroneous standard of review, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence but considers the judgment in a light most favorable to the successful party, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party, who is entitled to every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence.²

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below.³

ANALYSIS

This case presents an appeal from the denial of Chase's motion for discharge, which was affirmed by the district court. The denial of a motion for discharge under the speedy trial statutes is a final order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020).⁴ An appeal therefrom presents a relatively simple mathematical computation of whether the 6-month speedy trial clock, as extended by statutorily excludable periods, has expired before the commencement of trial and does not require any showing of prejudice.⁵

To calculate the time for speedy trial purposes, a court must exclude the day the complaint was filed, count forward 6 months, back up 1 day, and then add any time excluded under § 29-1207(4) to determine the last day the defendant can be tried.⁶ Although the speedy trial statutes expressly refer to indictments and informations, we have held that they also apply to prosecutions commenced by the filing of a complaint in county court.⁷ For misdemeanor offenses, such as this, where an "intimate partner" is an element of the offense, the 6-month period in which an accused is to be brought to trial commences the date the defendant is arrested on a complaint filed as part of a warrant for arrest.⁸ The burden of proof is upon the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the excluded time periods under § 29-1207(4) are applicable when the defendant is not tried within 6 months.⁹

Section 29-1207(4)(b) designates as excluded in computing the time for trial "[t]he period of delay resulting from a continuance granted at the request or with the consent of the defendant or his or her counsel." Section 29-1207(4)(c) designates as excluded the period of delay resulting from a continuance granted at the request of the prosecuting attorney for two reasons. Those reasons, as set forth in the statute, are...